Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday February 21, 2013 @08:44AM
from the and-for-the-same-reason dept.

New submitter Nyder writes "In a move that is sure to bring tears to the eyes of kids everywhere, Connecticut State Senator Toni Harp proposed a bill in January that would ban anyone younger than 18 from playing 'violent point-and-shoot' video games in arcades or other public establishments. 'The bill also called for research into the effects of violent video games on young minds, through a committee called the Violent Video Game Task Force within the Department of Children and Families. The task force would advise the Governor and General assembly on state programs that "may reduce the effects of violent video games on youth behavior," suggesting before the research was done that violent video games have an effect on children's actions.' Hopefully this won't pass; I guess the video game lobby hasn't paid this Senator enough 'funds' for her campaign."

Don't worry: I'm sure clueless politicians will happily race to create all sorts of stupid laws in any season.

George Carlin had an important point on this particular issue: These politicians want to take away all the toy guns from kids, but let them keep the real ones! My personal advice to any parent who owns guns is to not only teach kids basic gun safety (assume it's always loaded, don't point at anything you don't plan to shoot, etc), but to also keep your guns locked up so that kids can't take your gun

This is good advice, but there's a trend in talking about Sandy Hook that bothers me.

The thing about Sandy Hook is people keep talking about kids. Well, the only kids involved were being shot at by an adult man. It's not that this isn't good advice, it's that this tendency to infantilize Adam Lanza kind of sickens me.

If he was committing carjackings on behalf of the Bloods, or was an up and comer in the New York Mafia, would he get the same treatment?

yeah but the politicians want to tie it to kids because of lanza's upbringing.. It's spurious bullshit of course. I wonder what it is about CT that spawns such idiocy. Lieberman and Dodd were pulling this crap with Mortal Kombat back in 91.

Or, you could teach your kids how to safely handle guns. Turn guns into something they understand instead of some mystery object that works like a cartoon. That way when your kid runs across one outside of your home, they don't try to see the bullets come out by looking down the barrel. You don't get rid of all your fire toys (like candles) when you have a child. You teach your kid not to play with fire only in controlled conditions like at birthdays. Thinking that you can't teach your kid to respect the dangers of a gun is just silly.

You are fooling yourself. We are not cavemen. Most people have no need to ever handle fire on their own. You don't need it to cook. You don't need it to stay warm. You don't need it for light. In the places that it is used, like inside your engine, there is no reason that your average person needs access to the fire itself.

connecticut is the home to most of the gun manufacturers. the industry lobbying group is in sandy hook, close to the school that was shot up. the gun lobby is pushing the violent video game thing to keep guns legal

Or clued in politicians with certain agenda diverting attention from things their handlers told them to divert attention from and diverting said attention to things their handlers told them to divert attention to.

American politicians are too afraid of the NRA nutters to ban real guns. So they want to ban toys.

The NRA has been doing their part to focus attention on the attention in that direction. As saith Wayne LaPierre himself:

"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?"

(Incidentally, why is it that people who hate video games apparently only revise their lists of horrifying games every 5-10 years? If you are going for 'timeless classics' where the fuck are 'Doom' and 'Postal'. If you are going for relevant, how about a few of the big console shooters that actually have major audiences? C'mon, guys...)

Perhaps La Pierre was disappointed in the Xbox 360 version of Splatterhouse. I know I was.

Truthfully, this is part of living in a country where power is split between a gerontocracy and people who hate stereotypically masculine things. The oldsters hate young people stuff (Video Games) and the anti-male people hate masculine stuff (Guns and Video Games), so the set ends up intersecting at video games. That's really all it's about.

I was watching that TV series on Netflix "House of Cards," in which the mos

American politicians (most of them, at least) don't care one way or the other about the NRA. What they care about is how they look to the (voting) public. If some jackass mental patient shoots and kills a bunch of kids and the media says it has something to do with assault weapons and video games, then the politicians read about it and say "We must DO something!".

Banning toys is easy, since there's nothing in the constitution protecting the right o

That and the people who would actually be impacted by such a law can not vote. The number of voters who are willing to support votes that restrict people who are not like them is generally greater then the number of voters willing to support votes that benefit people who are not like them. Defending others takes more empathy then defending your own, so most people do not bother.

Toys are protected by the "Pursuit of happiness". The constitution is just a piece of paper declaring guidelines on how to run and limit the government. We still have the right to do as we damn well please.

No politician wants to have to do something so official and public as voting to remove a constitutional right...that would be political suicide. They're afraid, yes, but not of the NRA.

That you state the issue in those terms shows how effective the NRA has been.

Blaming the NRA on not wanting to touch constitutional issues? I don't guess your from the states. Touching the constitution tends to involve stuff like civil wars, race riots, prohibitions that start huge black markets. I'm not saying that abolishing slavery or more voter rights is bad, what I'm saying is, as a politician touching rights issue is dangerous politically and physically. And it has been since pretty much the beginning.

I wish we could talk about the Second Amendment without talking about the NRA, some of us who are in favor of the Second Amendment think that Wayne La Pierre is an addled blowhard.

Frankly, I still think the NRA's Sandy Hook press conference did more harm than good to the Right to Bear Arms.

As time passes it looks more and more like Adam Lanza was a Valerie Solanas type (not, Solanis didn't play video games) , a terrorist without a movement. I don't understand why an adult man, who if he was committing arme

I wish we could talk about the Second Amendment without talking about the NRA, some of us who are in favor of the Second Amendment think that Wayne La Pierre is an addled blowhard.

Even some of us who are NRA members also think that Wayne La Pierre is an addled blowhard. NRA itself has many useful functions beyond lobbying and propaganda; and for the latter, I see it as an unfortunate necessary evil to counter mindless drivel that comes from Brady's (the level of argumentation for both NRA and Brady's propaganda is about the same, and is equally inane - but that's what people listen to, as opposed to detailed 20-page studies on the subject with graphs and numbers). But they - and spec

Yes the solution is to make sure that all people are helpless (by law). That will keep them safe!... So when a person goes wacko (crazy enough to ignore those laws) they will be... Uhhh...
Wait, that isn't turning out the way it was intended.

Well the police will keep us safe! Yes because when all of those violent crimes happen the police are there to save us!... Uhhhh...
Wait, that was on those episodes of 24 and Hawaii Five-0. On the news the police show up much later and they sometimes figure out

Yes the solution is to make sure that all people are helpless (by law). That will keep them safe!... So when a person goes wacko (crazy enough to ignore those laws) they will be... Uhhh...Wait, that isn't turning out the way it was intended.

In the UK, handguns are banned for civilians. And most police don't carry firearms either. So in your mind, everyone is helpless. Result? A homicide rate a quarter of the USA.

We'll give you all the minorities that we either imported as slaves, or close to slave like conditions, and then performed systematic racism against for decades and we'll see what happens to your murder rate. The non-minority murder rate in the U.S. is much closer to the U.K. even with our guns, so something doesn't add up.

Sam Harris has a violence FAQ, comparing violent crime rates versus homicides. The homicide rates are higher in the US, but for every extra US homicide, there are 20 extra UK assaults. Is that a good trade off?

Sam Harris has a violence FAQ, comparing violent crime rates versus homicides. The homicide rates are higher in the US, but for every extra US homicide, there are 20 extra UK assaults. Is that a good trade off?

Thank you. When people whip out the crime statistics to prove how much safer we'd be without firearms, notice they always always stop right after homicide. All other crime? Well, what's a little terror in your life... your life we saved by banning firearms donchaknow.

Homicide rate is a pretty standard measure. A person was either killed, or they survived.

Violent crime rate varies in different countriesby what seriousness of crimes are included, and how it is measured, and how often it is recorded. It even varies within countries by time frame and study because of these variations.

But fundamentally, yes, the British are at least as violent as Americans, maybe more so. But because we don't have civilians owning handguns, the murder rate is a quarter.

Yes the solution is to make sure that all people are helpless (by law). That will keep them safe!... So when a person goes wacko (crazy enough to ignore those laws) they will be... Uhhh...Wait, that isn't turning out the way it was intended.

In the UK, handguns are banned for civilians. And most police don't carry firearms either. So in your mind, everyone is helpless. Result? A homicide rate a quarter of the USA.

The UK is about the size and density of New York + New Jersey + Pennsylvania. With the vast majority of access being through controlled ports. Both of those make black markets for guns difficult.Contrast with Brazil, gun ownership is illegal for most private citizens (there's limited exceptions for certain things like armed guards). However, they are much higher on the list in your link than the U.S. One of the main reasons I've seen [csmonitor.com] is that the large Amazon border allows guns to be smuggled in to drug

They want to ban firearms for purely cosmetic features that make no difference between it and other models, why not? Who said laws have to make sense, they clearly don't with nutter Diane Feinsteins gun bill.

That something could be programs that get more well defended, empowered, employed (at a reasonable working wage and hours, not this bullshit bank inflationary lotto ticket job economy), happy. Healthy people. People not being victimized by their elected officials. People not afraid to protect themselves and govern themselves. People with energy and liberty. Science, space programs, spiritual development. Education. Citizens participating with police in progressive non-violent ways to stop these problems bef

You know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual.

The guy is placating parents. The media loves to blame these mass shootings on video games... these blinking screens that are turning your children into mindless psychopaths.

So he's hoping for the "Thank god SOMEBODY is finally thinking of the children" vote.

It's possible this guy is also against guns in general, but even if not... that's obviously not the issue in a lot of parents eyes. It's "protect my baby... from myself... since I can't stop myself from buying him violent games"

When I was a young man, working at Software Etc., in the Golden Age of 16bit video games, I ran into this. I had a Mom come in with a real attitude problem.

Her problem was she hated video games, but her son was the only kid in his class who didn't have a console and he really wanted one. So she said, but "I want to protect him from this garbage," and pointed at Sonic Blast Man [youtube.com] for the Super Nintendo, apparently at random.

I told her, "No reason to buy a console. Here buy this copy of Mario is Missing [youtube.com] for

Because the pharmaceutical industry is huge in the US and we've got a mentality of just drugging people up rather than working on improving their condition and mental state without using harmful psychiatric drugs.

Banning is insufficient. People may actually try to live their lives in a non-optimal manner. We can't stop until everyone behaves in the manner which has been deemed to provide the maximum productive output with minimal societal cost.

Not more illegal than, as illegal as. Kids can't go shoot real guns without parental permission. Still ridiculous. I personally own one of the black Sega Saturn light guns imported from Japan. Do I have to worry that they're going to go knocking door to door for my illegal light gun?:)

I'll be happy to let you ban violent video games if you and your peers are willing to lighten up about, oh... let's say bare breasts appearing on television. Frankly, I'm beyond tired of the dichotomy, wherein a person's insides, blown all over the place by gunfire/explosions, is fit for all ages, but the naked human form (the outside of it, at least) is not.

I can't think of too many gun related massacres which were the direct result of "violent video games". In fact, most were the result of mentally unstable people coming into possession of a some type of device to cause harm -- not just guns. I think a lot of the tragedies could have been prevented had people close to the murderer(s) taken responsible action, early on, when harmful behavior was exhibited:

Most people can "Doom away" 24x7 and have no problem separating fantasy from reality. A small portion cannot. That same small portion who cannot will result to whatever means is at their disposal when they become unstable. Banning guns, video games, magazine capacities, does not address the core issue and actually ignores it.

Role playing is important for healthy mental growth. Video games aid in that role playing for most healthy individuals. Prohibition isn't going to fix anything. Never does.

I think a lot of the tragedies could have been prevented had people close to the murderer(s) taken responsible action, early on, when harmful behavior was exhibited

Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for doing that. The only mechanism for involving the authorities for a non-minor is through the criminal law system, which is designed less for treatment and more for punishment. I can't think of a way to get mental help for someone about to crack that wouldn't cost an enormous amount of money or turn them into a felon. We need to fix that.

Indeed. All the scientific data they need in order to evaluate correlations and risks is available in the well-respected peer-reviewed journals. Unfortunately (and I hope your crap joke detector is flashing red now), those journals have been classified as over-sized magazines, and are now banned.

More importantly, lets have a study regarding the effects of the united states having troops in nearly every country on earth, being involved in at least 3 wars simultaneously, and the US military glamorizing their profession through television and news adds. If you want to stop gun violence, stop putting rifles into the hands of teenagers and sending them into 3rd world countries to "keep the peace" I don't think playing Halo or hunting squirls with their dads are having anywhere near the effect of what the US governments planting into their heads about guns and "justified violence"

It will never exist. There will always be thorns on wild plants, some will have poison, others will make so many seeds you can't possibly kill them all. If the world put down all it's guns today and melted every weapon in to slag, the next bully with a large stick and a violent attitude could take it over.

You, like most other people are a violent person, if I attack you most likely you will fight back. If you don't directly, you will call in

The NRA's new policy of blaming video games is only going to backfire on firearm manufacturers. Part of the alure of top selling firearms like the AR-15 is how cool you think you are as soon as you have one. Take away movies like Rambo and Scareface or video games like Call of Duty (which pays gun manufacturers royalties to depict the various makes and models), and the demand for AR-15s and AK-47s is sure to decline over time.

Hunting as a past time has been on the decline for several decades now, and with

Um... what does the NRA have to do with a bill sponsored by a Democratic Congressperson?

Take away movies like Rambo and Scareface

LOLZ - "Scareface." Best typo of the day.

Hunting as a past time has been on the decline for several decades now

That's a real shame, considering how important hunting is to conservation efforts.

without movies and video games only sporting enthusiasts from law enforcement and military backgrounds will have much serious interest in these sorts of weapons.

I think you've hit upon the rationale of the Democrat who sponsored the bill. It's stupid and not based in reality, but hey, this is 'Murican politics we're talking about, so that's actually par for the course.

I'm expecting that by the end of the year a random person from the federal House to introduce a bill to make all FPS games be considered to be only appropriate for 18+ whether the ESRB likes it or not (and if necessary replace the ESRB with a federal agency).

Few people know how to shoot a rifle today. Imagine a population that knows nothing about firearms and becomes engaged in a land war. Bringing troops to the ready will be extremely difficult.

Estimates are that during the Vietnam War 30K-60K bullets were fired for every enemy casualty. In Iran and Afghanistan they speak of a quarter of a million rounds per enemy casualty. [jonathanturley.org] To some degree these poor numbers can be laid to "cover fire" but it also cannot be denied that the average army grunt is nowhere as skil

To almost all the degree it can be laid to cover fire. We can shoot more bullets in a day then were shot in the entire civil war. Back then you had to make your shot count because you didn't have a second one (in any reasonable amount of time). If we want to kill people with the fewest rounds possible we use snipers. Back then they stood in long lines and shot each other.

Stop romanticizing history. The south lost to the economic force of the north, how good each side shot didn't matter.

I would go the opposite direction: *encourage* target games, and even more realistic simulators, as part of trying to limit availability of real weapons. Insist that anyone who wants a gun license should be able to score high on a realistic simulator, like a driving test. Treat it like karting compared to real car racing.

That said, I have found that games like "Descent" (shooting at robots and mining machines) give me just as much excitement as games shooting at people, with fewer qualms. (Yes, it's

Wait, this could be good. What would arcade game manufacturers have to do to work around this? The only thing I can think of would be some sort Kinect-esque system where the child just needs to hold their hand up to the game in a gun like fashion and go "bang, bang" like they do anyway. Or perhaps have one hand as the gun and one hand on a fire button. It could work. This could be a great catalyst for some innovation.

I have personally survived two home invasions... both occurred while I was home. One was in New York outside of Albany. The other was in the suburbs of Washington DC. Your unwillingness to accept the reality of the situation is not justification to dictate what my defensive posture should or shouldn't be.

A shotgun is used for sporting purposes, home defense, and is all but useless as a first-strike or assault weapon.

Shotguns (yes, pump-action ones) have been used in a first-strike, offensive role by most armies since WW1. Winchester 1897, one of the most popular shotguns out there, was used by US Army soldiers to clear out trenches back then, and has earned the nickname "trench sweeper". It's much more efficient at it than your typical rifle, because it's easier to aim in CQB, and is far more deadly against unarmored targets.

If one of those idiots who perpetrate those mass shootings actually puts some thinking into his

Come on, even if there are any place that requires PC language by law, there are much bigger abuses of your freedom that make "land of the free" a joke already. Don't imply that we've lost our freedom because some people get their undies in a knot because they don't like the term "indian" anymore.

Of course they can. That isn't a video game so it's perfectly acceptable.
Come on, don't you know it's *only* video games that could possibly affect children's minds?

You're exactly right. What we need are isolation tanks [wikipedia.org] for every child to keep them from learning about the world until they're adults! We will have to develop a way to feed them and extract the waste without letting them out, though.

Apparently you weren't alive in the 80s, when a kid with a Worlds of Wonder Lazer-Tag gun got shot by a cop that thought it was a real gun, despite the fact the gun looks like an over-sized Star Trek:TNG Romulan Disruptor...

It isn't self-restraint; they're stressed-out, confused, distracted, overfed, under-nourished, medicated to the gills... and on top of that, they're just the same Americans that they were 40 to 60 years ago. We've become stupid, rude, lazy, self-destructive, incredibly gullible and profoundly easy to manipulate. More and more like the peasants that the uber-elite see us as...

It's particularly curious when you consider that the US constitution also includes robust speech protections, so it isn't as though this is a 'Well, one is constitutionally protected and the other isn't, our hands are tied here' thing The speech protections don't even include that cryptic stuff about well regulated militias.

Most of the ones I see these days are for hunting deer. So teenagers can hunt real deer with real rifles, but doing the same thing simulated on a video screen is going to turn them into mass murderers?

It's perfectly acceptable to beat, torture and humiliate prisoners after kidnapping them from their own countries, on the basis of accusations without proper trial, nor caring about getting them one, keeping them falsely imprisoned for 10+ years, while the rest of the world condemns your actions.

To put it bluntly, I could have done almost as much damage almost as fast in the last shooting with a baseball bat. Just the bat would get me through a fair amount of kids before an adult could stop me. I could certainly clear at least one class room.

Of course, adults would be able to stop me easily in groups, but a single class would be toast.

The issue at hand is purely perception. Crazy nut jobs going on killing rampages is hardly new. Its been happening, recorded, for thousands of years. Most of tha